StarGateWars Forums

[KMA]Avenger wrote:seriously Jim, what was the point of this thread?

The other thread was about a different subject.

you mean it wasn't a general thread about education?!

in my original post i laid out what i thought would be a good idea, that set the president so you could have if you wanted to, posted in that thread so we dont clog up the board.

doesnt matter...

back on topic i spose...

Legendary Apophis wrote:Four stars sarcastic shooting by Jo, but I'm not totally sure who were the targets..

That's the beauty of sarcasm.
Did that earn me a fifth star?

Oh yeah, merge this into the other. Same thing really, both ideas on how to improve education.


in b4 merge!

Radiance wrote:

Legendary Apophis wrote:Four stars sarcastic shooting by Jo, but I'm not totally sure who were the targets..

That's the beauty of sarcasm.
Did that earn me a fifth star?

Oh yeah, merge this into the other. Same thing really, both ideas on how to improve education.


in b4 merge!

I don't know, I originally intended to give it five stars...but I decided to give it four finally.

i agree about the first bit lol. but now that im not in high school, its all pointless. i woulda liked those harder tests.

i believe education should be free

that is all

In my opinion, it must be free until end of high school.
Then, for people who get throughout the previously mentionned proposals (harder selection and exams), and have a "low enough" family budget (or personal if they are "independant" from family) to deserve to have drastically reduced costs (not more than 500-800€ entry fee). Otherwise, for other people who also got thru but can afford it, they pay the price (whatever it is...but at least 1200-1500€ then). Depending on economical scales, several levels of entry fees and grants are proposed to the ones who got thru.
Given the lower amount of students, this shouldn't be much of a problem.

ANd still missing the point that the teachers from primary & secondary will once this new system of yours has been established start to choose who they actually try to teach based on the pupils class status & the standing of the pupils parents. Those pupils will then move to the back of the class and stop learning all because of a teachers idea that such people dont need to know whatever it is they are trying to teach.

This does & has been observed happening, teachers stop trying to teach all the pupils in the class and only focus on those who they think need to know the knowledge, a decision which is based upon the social standing of the parents & the class of the family.

Kit-Fox wrote:ANd still missing the point that the teachers from primary & secondary will once this new system of yours has been established start to choose who they actually try to teach based on the pupils class status & the standing of the pupils parents. Those pupils will then move to the back of the class and stop learning all because of a teachers idea that such people dont need to know whatever it is they are trying to teach.

This does & has been observed happening, teachers stop trying to teach all the pupils in the class and only focus on those who they think need to know the knowledge, a decision which is based upon the social standing of the parents & the class of the family.

Then so be it if it's THAT much meant to happen (which I doubt)?

I'm glad you've confined this to the EU. There are a few things that just wouldn't work here in Australia. But there are a few things I've read that I want to discuss:

Getting into a university should not be too difficult. To get into Law or Medicine here in Australia, you need a score above 95 (relative to your state high school system). I believe that this kind of mentality places far to much emphasis on a person's performances as a child, in a system that doesn't allow much independence or creativity. There are some very talented people that don't do very well in high school. However, you can get into other degrees with much lower scores.

I recall a story told to a class by one of my lecturers from university. She told us that the main campus of our university was taking in students to their Bachelor of Education (Teaching) program who got ENTER scores of less than 40. An ENTER score is a score out of 100, given to all high school graduates. 40 is a pretty low score. Everyone gasped at her comment. Then it dawned on me. We may be letting them into the course; but surely, if they aren't good enough, we aren't passing them? My point is, you might not be good enough to be a Quantum Physicist, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't get the chance to try to learn.

I do agree that exclusivity does mean something to a university graduate. From memory, 15% of Australians old enough to hold a degree hold at least a Bachelor's degree. However, if 50% of a graduating High School year are smart enough to go on to complete a degree, then it is unfair to demand that only 15% be allowed to do so.

Much of the exclusivity in Australian universities comes from the Professions themselves putting tighter restrictions on universities teaching the degrees necessary to practice. For example, Medicine is kept very exclusive because the Australian Medical Association (AMA) allocates a certain number of Bachelor of Medicine positions that each university may teach. Often universities are more than capable of teaching double this allowed intake. But, if the university takes in and teaches more students than they are allowed, the AMA will simply refuse to register their Graduates, or allow them to practice. Hence, the profession is kept very exclusive. Law is the same. They claim that this ensures that we have the most competent persons practicing in these professions, but aptitude studies have shown that many more people are capable of both studying and practicing Medicine or Law.

As for socioeconomic differences and fees. Here in Australia we have the Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS). There are literally no up-front fees to attend a university, provided you are an Australian citizen. For non-Citizens, the fee can be waived temporarily while the student studies. This is why Australia has the highest percentage of university students coming from overseas in the world. This scheme ensures that any student, even the poorest student, can study any degree that they are talented enough to complete. As long as your high school ENTER score gets you an offer from a university, you are always eligible for HECS. As I would expect in any fair world, your wealth should have ABSOLUTELY NO EFFECT on your prospects for university education.

/rant